Motorsport with big apertures

[gonças]

I recently purchased a canon 70-200 F2.8 L and I tired to take full advantage of the 2.8 aperture. However while doing this in a race track with fast moving cars many of the shots were blurry.

I figured this was caused by the AI Servo on my old 40D (maybe I'm wrong...). I was also told that the full frame cameras like the 1D or the 5D are the ones best suited to this lens.

Do you think swapping my 40D for a 5d, or maybe a newer APS-C camera, like the 50d or 7D, will avoid this?

thanks in advance

[ThomGascoigne]

Did you set the lens to IS 2 when taking these shots? not sure if that makes much of a difference but it is supposed to.

[DC Fan]

I recently purchased a canon 70-200 F2.8 L and I tired to take full advantage of the 2.8 aperture. However while doing this in a race track with fast moving cars many of the shots were blurry.

I figured this was caused by the AI Servo on my old 40D (maybe I'm wrong...). I was also told that the full frame cameras like the 1D or the 5D are the ones best suited to this lens.

Do you think swapping my 40D for a 5d, or maybe a newer APS-C camera, like the 50d or 7D, will avoid this?

thanks in advance

Another photographer in this forum has posted a series of outstanding motorsport images - mostly made with a 40D. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=793101) It's not the camera body.

The versions of the Canon 70-200mm L lens, both stabilized (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) and non-stabilized, (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) have an outstandingly good reputation. It's not the lens.

So it's likely a matter of technique. How do you use the camera and lens? Do you have an example you can post with the EXIT information intact?

[gonças]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=795115

[DC Fan]

In 2001: A Space Odyssey, one of the astronauts on Discovery One tells HAL 9000, "Well, Hal, I'm damned if I can find anything wrong with it." The same is the case with those images. There's absolutely nothing wrong with them.

Now, if you want a new autofocusing toy, you'll want to wait a few weeks for the release of the 1D Mark IV. (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DMK4/E1DMK4A.HTM) But there's never any guarantee that a new camera body will perform miracles.

[Mike Hoyer]

A 1-series is the same at f2.8 with fast moving objects. Just because it can do it doesn't mean it's always the best way.

[gonças]

A 1-series is the same at f2.8 with fast moving objects. Just because it can do it doesn't mean it's always the best way.

SO, do you reckon I should shoot at 3.5? 4? Only use the 2.8 in low light? I really like the bokeh at 2.8 :(

[Mike Hoyer]

Or shoot a burst of shots, increases the chances of sharp ones.

[Lowner]

The AI Servo on my 30D works fine, so I suspect the 40D does as well, if not better.

[GSH]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=795115

If those are the "blurry" shots you're worried about, all i'm seeing is a rapid drop off in Depth of Field caused by shooting at f2.8 / 3.2. You get the front of the car in focus but after that you lose "sharpness"...

[John Thawley]

SO, do you reckon I should shoot at 3.5? 4? Only use the 2.8 in low light? I really like the bokeh at 2.8 :(

First, there is nothing wrong with your photos. There are some things that might make them stronger... but you did a good job. And so did the camera.

No offense, but I reckon you should set about learning what all of this means. You're swinging for the fences when you need to be trying to get on base.

And, sadly, you're getting a ton of confusing advice here.

First... there is nothing wrong with the 40D. And, AI Servo has NOTHING TO DO with "keeping up with the big apertures." In fact, autofocus has nothing to do with your aperture setting at all.

You're pictures are fine. Some of the softness you are seeing is due to the car rotating on an axis that is opposed to the film plane (sensor) and lens face. The back end of the car is coming around... it's moving in a different direction than the nose of the car and traveling at a different rate of speed... relative to the camera. It's physics and there's not a lot you can do about it.

Even if your observations were informed, a 5D would be going the opposite way. Much slower autofocus, and a slower burst rate.

You're also not recognizing that there are aperture settings in every lens that yield a sharper image than other apertures in the same lens. Nothing to do with depth of field... strictly characteristics of the glass and where the "sweet spot happens to be."

Personally, I would have shot your head-ons with a little slower shutter speed and panned the car ever so slightly.

Aperture, to a point, is somewhat moot when shooting motorsports. You should be shooting in shutter preferred mode (TV).

The Depth of Field in your head on shots is more a factor of the distance than the f/2.8. Certainly the DOF on the f/2.8 is shallow.... but what you called "bokeh" (we'll get to that) is cause by the fact there's nothing behind the car to focus on. Yes, it's going to tail off a bit toward the back of the car.... but the out of focus areas are caused from the rotation effect I described above and by the simple fact that there is nothing to focus on behind the car.

"Bokeh" is a term that describes the smoothness and qualities of the "circle of confusion" WITHIN the shallow depth of field. It is not simply the out of focus area. Bokeh will typically include reflected highlights that appear like light refractions and a creamy texture. While your pictures do have a fairly shallow depth of field, it's not what you'd refer to as bokeh.

Lastly, not sure which thread recommended setting 2 of the image stabilization mode, but take my word for it... TURN IT OFF completely. It is useless for panning and shooting motorsports.

Let's forget panning for a second and talk about straight on shots where the camera is stationary. There is a handy rule of thumb to use about hand held shutter speeds; Try to use a shutter speed that is equal in number to the focal length you are using. So... if you're shooting a 50mm lens... don't shoot below 1/60 sec. If you're using a 100mm lens, don't shoot under 1/100 sec. and so on. Realistically, unless you are really, really good, I wouldn't shoot that 200mm under 1/250 of a second. You are going to get tremble. This is the ONLY time the IS is effective. IF you're at 200mm, f/2.8 and you can't get anything faster than 1/250 sec. on the shutter... turn on the IS. That will buy you some speed and remove the tremble. If you're shooting at 100mm and can't get any faster than 1/100... turn on the IS. It will only help you for approximately one additional stop. It's about tremble... not shake.

In panning... what's the point? I pan at 1/30 sec. with my 200mm all day long... even 1/15. Image Stabilization isn't going to do anything.... not even remotely. Leave it off... it only slows down the auto focus and sucks down the batter. My last two 70-200 f/2.8 lenses have been NON-IS.

You need to get a grasp of getting the right exposure so that you can make an educated CREATIVE decision about which combination of ISO, shutter speed and aperture is going to give you the best results. Of course, you always want a correct exposure.... but there are many different combinations that will give you a correct exposure... you want the combination that creatively reports the story you're trying to tell.

At the end of the day, great motorsports shots come from being in control.... making the camera do what YOU want it to do.

Good luck.

http://www.johnthawley.com/journal/2008/8/18/the-pan-shot-taking-control.html


JT

[gonças]

Thanks a lot John! Good reading!

The photos on that thread are the best I picked, because many were blurry and out of focus.